Université de Lorraine: Direct Waste Printing with PLA Pellets Versus FDM 3D Printing

French researchers from Université de Lorraine assess 3D printing techniques and recycling feedstocks, detailing their study in the recently published ‘Mechanical Properties of Direct Waste Printing of Polylactic Acid with Universal Pellets Extruder: Comparison to Fused Filament Fabrication on Open-Source Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers.’

While FDM (FFF) 3D printing has become highly accessible and affordable to users around the world, in this study the researchers also focus on the use of fused granular fabrication (FGF). Exploring the potential for continued ‘greening of distributed recycling,’ the researchers assess both FDM and FGF techniques for the desktop, experimenting with the following recycling filaments:

  • Commercial filament
  • Pellets
  • Distributed filament
  • Distributed pellets
  • Waste

Global framework of the experimentation. FFF, fused filament fabrication; FGF, fused granular fabrication; PLA, polylactic acid. Color images are available online.

A large part of the assessment included comprehensive studying of the granules (granulometry) used due to concerns regarding quality of reproducibility in the samples. Cost was substantially reduced, with material costing less than 1 €/kg – in comparison with 20 €/kg for commercial recycled filament. Better affordability coupled with quality in performance offers obvious benefit to users, with the potential for promoting a circular economy and efficient recycling.

“Due to the introduction of the open-source self-replicating rapid prototyper (RepRap), the dominant technology of 3D printing is fused filament fabrication (FFF) using polylactic acid (PLA),” stated the researchers. “Various forms of filament extrusion systems have proven effective at recycling PLA. However, PLA degrades with each cycle through the print/grind/extrude to filament/print loop.”

“This issue can be partially controlled by adding virgin PLA to recycled PLA, coatings, or carbon fiber reinforcement.”

By effectively eliminating the need to use filament and move directly to recycling waste, the researchers expect numerous benefits to continue emerging: reduced use of energy, faster production time, and less resources expending in making filament.

The following types of PLA were used:

  • Virgin, commercial PLA 4043D from NatureWorks (pellet form)
  • Recycled PLA filament from Formfutura for FFF printing
  • Recycled PLA filament produced in situ in ‘fablab conditions,’ meant for FFF printing
  • Pelletized feedstock for FGF
  • Shredded PLA from 3D printed waste, for FGF

In experimenting with the FFF system, the researchers used a Prusa i3 running Marlin firmware v1.1.9.

The FGF printer comprised a pellet extruder kit39 adapted to a commercial FFF printer (Créality CR-10S pro48) machine using a Marlin firmware v1.1.19. The pellet extrusion kit uses an auger screw with a diameter, cartridge heater –, and nozzle diameter that mixes and extrudes the melted material. The hot end of the FFF printer was adapted by replacing the pellet extruder prototype as shown in Figure 2. After the mechanical assembly was made, the first experimental tests were carried out to adapt the machine to the new parts and calibrate the formation of an extruded filament by using virgin PLA pellets. The extrusion factor was changed to calibrate the rotation of the screw extruder.

The FGF printer consisted of a pellet extruder attached to a Créality CR-10S pro 3D printer using Marlin firmware v1.1.19.

(a) FFF and (b) FGF printers used in the experimentation. Color images are available online.

Eight test samples were weighed and measured, and then evaluated for the following:

  • Tensile strength
  • Strain
  • Elastic modulus

Printability of shredded PLA materials. Color images are available online.

Printability of shredded PLA materials. Color images are available online.

“Regarding the economic aspect, using the FGF printer with virgin PLA pellets, there is a 65% reduction in printing cost per kilogram and a shorter production time compared with recycled commercial filaments, which is a non-negligible option. The results show that the main cost in 3D FFF printing is in the acquisition of filaments. However, the acquisition of recycled material filaments reduces the cost in relation to the acquisition of virgin material filaments, providing a reduction in the use of virgin raw material in 3D printing,” concluded the researchers.

“Opportunities arise in the possibility of using other types of recycled waste, including flexible and composite (plastic/plastic) materials as has been done on larger systems. Also, main factors such as polymer viscosity, which need to be controlled in the FGF process, are needed.”

Undoubtedly recycling will continue to be an ongoing theme in the 3D printing industry, with previous studies reflecting the state of recycling, solvent recycling, and circular chemical recycling. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘Mechanical Properties of Direct Waste Printing of Polylactic Acid with Universal Pellets Extruder: Comparison to Fused Filament Fabrication on Open-Source Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers’]

The post Université de Lorraine: Direct Waste Printing with PLA Pellets Versus FDM 3D Printing appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printer Manufacturer Xioneer Systems Acquired by BellandTechnology (VXL)

As BellandTechnology AG acquires Xioneer Systems, excellence in 3D printing materials and hardware continue to meet–and improve–via global expansion. Headquartered in Bayreuth, Germany and founded in 2008, BellandTechnology today is branded under VXL, and is known as a consumables manufacturer—mainly through development and production of acrylic-based thermoplastic polymers.

With the addition of Vienna, Austria-headquartered Xioneer Systems GmBH in December, BellandTechnology receives 100 percent of their shares, as well as their impressive expertise in manufacturing FFF 3D printers.

Xioneer was founded in 2012 and worked with a team of around 20 employees last time we interviewed them regarding their six patented technologies and features surrounding their 3D printers and materials. They are known for their initial Xioneer Desktop 3D printer, and the 2016 FormNext Start-up Challenge Award as they were recognized for their 3D printing innovation.

“By merging our companies, we combine the 3D printing know-how of Xioneer with the materials know-how of BellandTechnology. And this places us in a unique competitive position: a position to tackle 3D printing challenges in a new way, to deliver new solutions. All that with one goal in mind: to promote the FFF technology in both the consumer and the industrial additive manufacturing markets,” explains Dr. Andrei Neboian, founder and CEO of Xioneer.

“To achieve this, we decided to focus on the entire FFF industry and change our product course accordingly. Therefore, we will expand our service portfolio and we plan to offer innovative add-on systems, components, and accessories for any FFF 3D printer on the market.”

Xioneer currently also serves customers engaged in aerospace, automotive, medical and tooling, and engineering applications—supported by the Xioneer Industrial 3D printer, beginning in 2018. Their pioneering efforts in the production of hardware will complement BellandTechnology’s unique position in the 3D printing industry as they continue to make and market high-performance thermoplastics featuring ‘controlled solubility.’ This applies to both water or aqueous alkali solutions and can be critical in areas like electronics, and mechanical or medical engineering too. Typical products produced via these polymers include:

  • Solids
  • Adhesives
  • Foams
  • Films
  • Fibers
  • Semi-finished products

BellandTechnology thermoplastics, offering notably higher thermal stability, are also used in 3D printing complex parts.

“We are excited about the future with Xioneer on board. In the coming years we will serve the FFF 3D printer market with software solutions, hardware components, and innovative concepts for 3D printing consumables – all perfectly matched together,” said Thomas Demmer, the CEO of BellandTechnology AG.

“These products will be cost-efficient, professional, and user friendly. As a 3D printing materials company, we are open to work with all 3D printer manufacturers. And we believe that this openness, together with the willingness to deliver great products to manufacturers and end-users, will help us push the FFF market forward.”

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

The Xioneer Desktop Professional 3D Printer

[Source / Images: Xioneer Technologies]

The post 3D Printer Manufacturer Xioneer Systems Acquired by BellandTechnology (VXL) appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

SABIC’s EXTEM AMHH811F: Roboze Announces New Polyimide Filament

Roboze continues to have an emphasis on manufacturing 3D printers while placing a strong focus materials science too—allowing them to offer superior digital fabrication tools to industrial users around the world. With headquarters in Bari, Italy, Roboze was founded by CEO Alessio Lorusso and his team in 2013.

Known for their line of Roboze Argo Production 3D printing solutions, they have just announced the release of an amorphous thermoplastic polyimide filament: SABIC’s EXTEM AMHH811F, a transparent material developed for stability and heat resistance. EXTEM is an example of a class of PEEK/PAEK alternative materials that are polyimides and polyamide-imides. Tolon, PEI and Kapton are similar materials and many of these materials are referred to as PAI’s or PAI even though this should only refer to the polyamide-imide family.

Meant to accompany Roboze’s Argo 3D printing solutions, the new materials were created in collaboration with the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia-headquartered SABIC. The two companies have been working on an exclusive partnership for the research and marketing of EXTEM™ AMHH811F, meant to offer superior performance in parts for industrial users engaged in FFF 3D printing.

Having a partner like SABIC creates an important opportunity for our customers,” says Alessio Lorusso, Roboze CEO& Founder. “We share values like innovation and constant investment in research, development, new materials and technologies. EXTEM™ AMHH811F filament is a first demonstration of this and gives the chance to explore new horizons with the high performing amorphous polymer on FFF systems.”

“We’re proud of these great achievements and also of the growing trust we have received from SABIC. With Roboze ARGO Production 3D Printers and the new EXTEM™ AMHH811F filament, we can increase the opportunities for Metal Replacement. I’m definitely sure that all this will guarantee great advantages in terms of speed and productivity for the users.”

The material provides temperature resistance, with a heat deflection up to 230°C. Not only that, EXTEM AMHH811F has one of the highest glass transition temperatures of current polymer 3D printing materials, at 247°C. Typically EXTEM also has very high continuous service temperatures. The material is also inherently flame-retardant without the addition of additional nasty materials and has low off-gassing, high strength, high chemical resistance, and high creep resistance. This makes it a potentially very interesting material specifically for aerospace applications, especially if it were easier to print than PEEK (most probably) and has better performance and cost fit than PEI (would depend on the application). This is a material that in many applications could give PEEK and PEKK grades a run for their money or outperform them.

This filament also offers:

  • High performing ignition resistance
  • Mechanical strength at high temperatures
  • RoHS compliance

“To enable customers to print high quality parts for a range of demanding high heat applications, SABIC and Roboze have worked closely together to optimize print parameters and secure UL recognition for EXTEM™ parts printed on Roboze solutions,” said Keith Cox, SABIC’s senior business manager for Additive Manufacturing.

The new filament has also been awarded UL Blue Card recognition with V0-075 certification on samples printed by ROBOZE ARGO Production 3D printers with a thickness of 0.75 mm—placing EXTEM™ AMHH811F on the same certification level as injection molded parts of the same material at the same thickness.

Both Roboze and SABIC created EXTEM™ AMHH811F to offer high performance in the following industries:

  • Motorsports
  • Electronics
  • Medical
  • Aeronautics
  • Space

It’s been exciting to collaborate with Roboze to become the exclusive supplier of EXTEM™ AMHH811F filament for use on the ARGO platform. Our companies share the same enthusiasm to grow the AM market by making new high-performance materials available to customers whose applications require the performance that can only be delivered by EXTEM™ filament on the new ARGO 3D printer. We hope that this is the first of many such exclusive collaborations with Roboze,” continues Keith Cox.

If you are attending formnext 2019 in Frankfurt (from November 19-22), check out the first 3D printed parts fabricated with EXTEM™ filament, presented in a worldwide premiere at Roboze booth 121-C61.

From offering extreme 3D printing services to helping transportation companies become more productive, Roboze continues to be a dynamic force—with their CEO, Alessio Lorusso named as a ‘Forbes 30 under 30’ in 2018.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: Roboze]

The post SABIC’s EXTEM AMHH811F: Roboze Announces New Polyimide Filament appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

University of California: 3D Printing with Magnetics & Hexaferrite Materials

Max Ho of the University of California recently published his dissertation, ‘Magnetic 3D Printing of Hexaferrite Material,’ exploring the use of progressive technology and materials, and the potential in possible applications like miniaturization and circulator integration. Ho chose 3D printing as the technology of choice because of the ability to fabricate complex technologies with the addition of magnetic material.

For this study, Ho chose hexaferrite particles due to ‘strong magnetocrystalline anisotropy and low conductance,’ able to rotate to the field direction rather than changing direction. The research team created hexaferrite particles and a liquid polymer, SU8.

“3D printing of this composite with poling will make direct printing of magnetic components that require out-of-plane and in-plane anisotropic magnetization possible,” explains Ho.

Millimeter wave, an electromagnetic spectrum, corresponds from 30 to 300 GHz—a regime that is ‘ideal’ for both satellite and covert radar communications.

The circulator allows the single antenna to be shared between the transmit and receive states. The isolator (circulator with a grounded port in the block diagram) protects the antenna from the reflected signal. The limiter prevents damage to the low noise amplifier during transmit or whenever stray radiation is present, and the low-noise amplifier (LNA)sets the noise figure of the system, but all losses between the antenna and the LNA add to the overall noise figure and must be minimized. The phase shifter and often the attenuator is used in both transmit and receive paths. In this block diagram, an amplifier and the phase shifter are configured in the common-leg circuit(CLC). The attenuator is used to add an amplitude taper across the array, to reduce sidelobes. This is typically only done in receive state.

The communication systems would use radio frequency (RF) transmit and receive (T/R) modules to boost output power, establish system noise figure for receiving, along with offering beam steering control. The use of a single antenna would be best in this scenario, with a circulator controlling signal flow.

Schematics illustrate the functions of a circulator (duplexer) and an isolator[5]. A circulator in a T/R module controls the flow of signals among the transmitter, antenna, and receiver. An isolator is a circulator with a grounded 3rdport and blocks reflected signal back to signal source.

Magnetic components are required for millimeter wave systems, and the modules are created with:

  • Monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs)
  • Circulators
  • Isolators
  • Inductors

This is areal T/R module used in a Euro Typhoon Fighter’s active phased array radar. On the left, this is just one component, a circulator, and on the right, you have quite a few Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits, or MMIC, such as low-noise amplifiers, high power amplifiers, and complementary metal oxide semiconductor devices. The circulator, which is a magneticcomponent, is built separated from the MMICs. This type of components uses magnetic materials that exploit unique physics and functionality not available in semiconductor materials[4]

A Circulator dimension. Source: ebay.com

3D printing has proven itself useful and versatile in terms of magnetic composites, along with other materials:

“A class of smart materials known as magnetorheological elastomer, composites of polymer and magnetic materials, has been fabricated via traditional techniques and only recently by 3D printing. Prior research has demonstrated printing magnetic composite and poling it in the plane of printing [16], [17], where poling is the act of setting the magnetization of the composite in a desired direction. The same concept and technique can be applied to different magnetic materials, such as hexaferrite.”

The team used FDM/FFF 3D printing, selecting a Hyrel M30 printer. Thermoplastic filaments can be used, along with liquid or gel composites. While there are many obstacles in using hexaferrite, a blend of particles and photoresist has been found to work in prior studies—but the research team here thought the use of 3D printing would make the process even more versatile than with the use of traditional methods. And while they were able to meet their goals, Ho states that ‘there is always room for improvement.’

Ho suggests the use of single domain hexaferrite particles, or the possibility of replacing the polymer matrix with less solvent, along with in situ poling.

“This technique of 3D printing with a composite of magnetic material in a polymer matrix has a broader range of application beyond just millimeter-wave magnetic devices. Either the magnetic material or the polymer matrix can be changed to different varieties, depending on the application,” says Ho. “For example, the magnetic particles can be made of NdFeB, which would have very high magnetization and suitable for low-frequency applications.”

“The polymer matrix can also be changed from SU8 to silicone-based polymer or PDMS, which is not photosensitive. If the composite meets the requirements outlined in Chapter 2, it can used in a 3D printer of FDM/FFF-type.”

Composites and other materials with the use of magnetics are growing in popularity within 3D printing, for everything from use in microgravity to sensors, functional assemblies for medical devices, and more.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Both types also rely on the presence of an asymmetrical magnetic field provided by the magnetized ferrite. From the perspective of an electromagnetic wave traveling toward the junction, the geometry would be identical from every port. However, the field distribution of the wave inside the waveguide is not symmetrical. The H fields are polarized elliptically in planes either along or normal to the traveling direction and is of opposite orientation in either side of the waveguide. Since permeability is a tensor and thus depends on the orientation, the wave will experience asymmetry as it passes through the external magnetic field from the magnetic ferrite. A mathematical analysis of the structure that explains how a circulator works is iterated below.

[Source / Image: ‘Magnetic 3D Printing of Hexaferrite Material’]

The post University of California: 3D Printing with Magnetics & Hexaferrite Materials appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Reducing 3D Printing Collisions with Toolpath Optimization Methodology

While many industries are using 3D printing to manufacture products, the technology has not been largely adopted in large-scale production. According to researchers from the University of Arkansas Department of Industrial Engineering, this is mainly due to cycle time. However, while it’s possible to print different parts of one object at the same time thanks to multiple collaborating printheads, this isn’t yet widely supported by research. Hieu Bui, Harry A. Pierson, Sarah G. Nurre, and Kelly M. Sullivan published a paper, titled “Tool Path Planning Optimization for Multi-Tool Additive Manufacturing,” that lays out their proposed toolpath optimization methodology.

The abstract states, “The objectives are to create a collision-free infill toolpath for each printhead while maintaining the mechanical performance and geometric accuracy of the printed object. The methodology utilizes the combination of tabu search and novel collision detection and resolution algorithms, TS-CCR. The performance of the TS-CCR is analyzed and compared with the current industry standard.”

The FFF 3D printing process is limited by how fast the printhead is able to move, melt, and dispense filament. The parallel processing method, which lets multiple toolheads work together at the same time to fabricate different parts of the same object, is used by the Autodesk Netfabb software function for Project Escher 3D printers. This can obviously speed up printing time, but also increases the chance for collisions.

Netfabb uses an algorithm to make sure that all the printheads are synchronized, so they can’t collide with each other.

Summary of the result from the case study of Netfabb’s performance and toolpath illustrations (30% infill) of the Netfabb method and proposed method.

 The goal of this methodology is to consider collision constraints for 2-gantry 3D printers, while also minimizing the single layer makespan (printing time). 

The shortcomings of current methods, the lack of published research on concurrent FFF, and the need for an alternative path-planning method for multi-gantry FFF 3D printers inspired the development of a new method,” the researchers explained. “Although the multi-gantry system is one of several kinematic configurations of concurrent FFF 3D printing, increased understanding it can provide insights into the development of generalized multi-tool path planning problems for AM processes.”

A Tabu Search (TS) heuristic (practical method of problem solving), which uses a memory mechanism to store information to help guide future searches, was used to optimize the single layer makespan in the methodology by adjusting the toolpath for the infill. The TS incorporates three main operators:

  1. The local swap operator swaps two raster segments printed by the same printhead to reduce the rapid movement distance
  2. The global swap operator exchanges two raster segments that have been printed from different printheads
  3. The rebalancing operator allocates one raster segment from the printhead with a higher makespan to the other printhead

a) trajectory plot produced by the collision checking algorithm (tested layer A with 1% infill) showing 4 possible collisions (i.e. vertical gray bars); b) trajectory plot after adding 3 seconds’ delay to resolve the first collision (note that it also resolves the following collisions); c) toolpath representations of solution in 2b. The arrows indicate the two gantries are moving in the opposite directions toward each other when printing the associated raster segments. By adding 3 seconds delay at the dwell location, the two gantries synchronized and avoided the potential collision.

“At the beginning of the algorithm, with a randomized initial solution list, the global swap operator is favored. Due to the high degree of randomization of the sequence and the high number of collisions, adding delays might not be able to resolve the collisions, in which case the two gantries will work in sequential order. The goal is to segment the appropriate raster segments into two groups, one group for each printhead. The number of collisions begins to decrease as a result. Later on, the local swap slowly becomes more attractive.”

Two complementary algorithms work with the TS: a collision checking algorithm, which detects any potential collisions, and a collision response algorithm, which finds points in the toolpaths where a collision can be avoided by adding a delay.

The researchers explained, “An efficient collision checking algorithm should be able to quickly detect the collisions for a large number of raster segments and identify the corresponding movements that caused them. By utilizing a unique characteristic of the multi-gantry FFF machine, the process of identifying the collisions can be simplified. In such configuration, the collisions happen every time the gantries collide in the x-direction. In other words, a collision happens when the two gantries share the same workspace at any moment in time. A safety distance between two gantries was added when constructing the trajectory plot as a way to keep the gantries away from each other even though the collision is detected.”

Flowchart of collision checking algorithm

“The motivation of the collision response algorithm is to identify an opportunity for resolving the collision by adding a delay. It is worth mentioning that each vertex on the trajectory plot represents a potential place to insert the delay.”

This algorithm has 4 steps, the first being to identify a set of line segments that are associated with the first collision, and then figuring out whether a delay could fix the collision. Third, the delay is inserted and all future trajectory segments are adjusted, and finally, you move up in time to find the next collision; then, lather, rinse, repeat until the collisions are gone.

The team’s methodology for avoiding 3D printing collisions was thus named Tabu Search with collision checking and response, or TS-CCR.

“The TS-CCR outputs a solution represented as a combined list of sequences of raster segments that must be printed for each printhead,” the researchers wrote. “To get the infill makespan of the solution, an infill toolpath for each printhead is constructed from the aforementioned solution. The collision-checking algorithm then searches for any potential collisions and passes the information to the collision-response algorithm, which introduces delays in order to prevent potential collisions.”

a) tested layer A; b) turbine blade layer; c) engine block layer; d) wheel rim layer. The wheel rim layer is considered a special case since Netfabb did not produce a solution.

To test the TS-CCR’s performance, the team chose four objects, then sliced a selected layer of 0.3 mm from each and computed the results from the theoretical minimum makespan, slicing the layer with the Netfabb Multi-Gantry FFF Engine and the 2018.1.0 Escher plugin, and the TS-CCR.

They collected information, such as build volume and print speed, about the multi gantry 3D printer from the Titan Cronus profile in Netfabb.

For the TS heuristic, the value for the size of the candidate list and tabu tenure were chosen as 10 and 4, respectively. The algorithm terminates if it has been running for 2 minutes since the last improvement,” the researchers explained.

Then, they compared the makespan for three solutions – the theoretical minimum, proposed methodology, and Netfabb for 2 printheads – in a trajectory plot, which shows how the algorithms performed. 55 seconds of delays were added at different points, but because most of these were introduced in the printhead with a shorter makespan, only three total seconds were added to the overall makespan. This plot also shows how important the rebalancing operator is in TS – the gantries completed their work at almost the same time.

Trajectory plot of the result obtained from the TS-CCR (engine block layer with 30% infill). The printing time of the two gantries are 1272 and 1269 seconds, respectively.

“The performance of the methodology varies depending on the complexity of the layer. It can reduce the makespan of the “tested layer A” by 14.48% as compared to Netfabb, while the improvement reduces to 10.18% for the “engine block” layer. Since only one printhead is utilized to print the perimeter shells, the time spent on printing the shells likely offsets the improvement of the proposed methodology for any complex layer. Since this work focuses on only optimizing the infill, the method of allowing multiple printheads to print the perimeter shell at the same time can be implemented to reduce the makespan further,” the researchers wrote.

While there are only about 11 minutes of makespan reduction for the tested layer over the single printhead, this kind of improvement can accumulate across all layers and reduce the overall time.

a) makespan comparison for 3 layers (tested layer A, engine block, turbine blade) at 30% infill, where the proposed method can yield a solution with a shorter makespan than the solution obtained from Netfabb; b) makespan comparison for the “wheel rim” layer, where Netfabb did not produce a solution. The result from the methodology is compared to the makespan if the same layer is printed by the single printhead and the theoretical minimum.

The team’s proposed TS-CCR methodology can solve major issues of using multi-gantry FFF 3D printing, such as carefully planning to avoid mutual collisions while also not compromising the strength of the final print.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below. 

The post Reducing 3D Printing Collisions with Toolpath Optimization Methodology appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

BASF Commercializing Metal-Polymer 3D Printing Composite Material with iGo3D, MatterHackers, and Ultimaker

BASF 3D Printing Solutions, a subsidiary of German chemical company BASF that’s focused entirely on 3D printing, has been working to build up its materials inventory over the past two years. In 2017, BASF formed a partnership with Essentium for the purposes of developing more robust FFF 3D printing materials. A new partnership focuses on the industrial Ultrafuse filament family, which includes extra-strong Ultrafuse Z for the desktop. Now, it’s introducing a new Ultrafuse material: Ultrafuse 316L metal-polymer composite.

“Ultrafuse 316L can, under certain conditions, be processed on any conventional, open-material FFF printer. Our goal was to develop a high-quality metal filament that makes the additive manufacturing of metal parts considerably easier, cheaper, faster, and accessible to everyone,” explained François Minec, Managing Director, BASF 3D Printing Solutions.

In the past, FFF was limited to just using thermoplastics. But BASF Ultrafuse 316L is a metal filament with polymer content, the latter of which acts as a binder during the printing process. The main polymer content, or primary binder, from the ‘green’ part is removed through catalytic debinding, which then results in the brown part of pure metal particles and the residual (secondary) binder. Industry-standard debinding and sintering processes take this secondary binder out of the brown part, while the metal particles combine. Post-sintering is when the material achieves its final hardness and strength properties – 316L stainless steel.

Ultrafuse 316L was specifically designed for safe, cost-effective printing of fully stainless steel objects on open FFF 3D printers for metal tooling, prototypes, and functional parts. Now, BASF has begun to commercialize the material with a trio of companies – professional desktop 3D printing solutions provider iGo3D, 3D printing retailer MatterHackers, and desktop 3D printing leader Ultimaker.

“In comparison to Metal Injection Molding (MIM), the Ultrafuse 316L offers an office-friendly solution, which opens new production opportunities. To reach the full potential of the metal filament and to ensure a solid start, it is necessary to understand that Ultrafuse 316L is not a conventional filament. Our goal is it to provide full service packages and support from the first request up to the finalized and sintered part, to implement metal 3D printing as a natural component in your manufacturing process,” said Athanassios Kotrotsios, the Managing Director of iGo3D.

The risk of defects is lower, and the success rate higher, when using Ultrafuse 316L due to the metal content being in the high 90% range, and an even distribution of metal in the binder matrix. In addition, the possible occupational and safety hazards that come with handling fine powders are significantly decreased with this material, because the metal particles are immobilized in the binder matrix.

“Ultrafuse 316L from BASF enables engineers and designers to produce true, pure, industrial grade metal parts easily and affordably using desktop 3D printers. This material is a significant technological advancement and truly a shift in how we describe what is possible with desktop 3D printers,” said Dave Gaylord, Head of Products for MatterHackers.

BASF’s Ultrafuse 316L – Metal filament for 3D printing stainless steel parts

The new Ultrafuse 316L metal composite filament is strong and flexible enough to be guided through complex material transport systems, and works with both Bowden and direct drive extruder types.

Paul Heiden, Senior Vice President Product Management for Ultimaker, said, “The Ultimaker S5 raises the bar for professional 3D printing by offering a hassle free 3D printing experience with industrial-grade materials. We are proud to announce that print profiles for Ultrafuse 316L will be added to the Ultimaker Marketplace. 3D printing professionals worldwide can then use FFF technology to produce functional metal parts at significantly reduced time and costs compared to traditional methods.”

BASF will provide 3D printer processing guidelines and parameter sets for Ultrafuse 316L, in addition to on-site support and consultancy to make sure that the material is performing up to snuff on your choice of FFF 3D printer. But if you’re interested in learning more about how to use the material now, you can check out this tutorial from MatterHackers about BASF’s new Ultrafuse 316L:

Metal polymer materials will let a lot more people 3D printing stronger materials. However, it has to be noted that a completely new geometry will most probably not work the first time with this process. Shrinkage rates in parts vary across wall thicknesses, part sizes and even geometries. During the sintering, process parts will tend to not shrink uniformly. The currentl limitation with Ultrafuse is therefore the same one that affects binder jetting with metals. For series of the same parts this is very interesting currently and it should be a solvable challenge to make shrinkage more predictable. But, the sheer data involved to predictably predict part outcomes at many geometries and do then in software predictively deform parts would be vast. So solvable, but still a difficult challenge to undertake for these partners and the industry as a whole.

Discuss this news and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

[Images: BASF]

The post BASF Commercializing Metal-Polymer 3D Printing Composite Material with iGo3D, MatterHackers, and Ultimaker appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Combining Over-3D Printing of Continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites with Stamp Forming Organo-sheet Substrates

Because continuous carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite materials have such high strength, stiffness, and fatigue resistance, in addition to noise suppression and impact energy absorption qualities, a lot of people are naturally interested in them for multiple applications. But, researchers need to look into ways to address related challenges, such as cost-effective processes to manufacture these materials.

U. Morales, A. Esnaola, M. Iragi, L. Aretxabaleta, and J. Aurrekoetxea with Mondragon Unibertsitatea published a paper, titled “Over-3D printing of continuous carbon fibre composites on organo-sheet substrates,” that looks at combining FFF 3D printing of continuous fiber reinforced composites with organo-sheet thermoplastic composites.

The abstract reads, “Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), or 3D printing, of continuous fibre reinforced composites allows getting advanced materials (steered-fibres, dispersed stacking sequence laminates or functionally graded composites), as well as complex geometries (cellular structures or metamaterials). However, FFF presents several drawbacks, especially when large-projected area or high-fibre content composite parts are required. On the other side, stamp forming of organo-sheet thermoplastic composites is a cost-effective technology, but with severe geometric limitations. Combining both technologies, by over-3D printing on the organo-sheet, can be a promising approach to add the best of each of them. The effect of the organo-sheet temperature on the shear strength of the bonding interface is studied. The results show that strong bonding interface can be achieved when the correct substrate temperature is chosen. In fact, it is largely improved if the interface temperature is higher than the melting temperature of the substrate layer.”

Figure 1. Set up of the over-3D printing.

While stamp forming organo-sheet thermoplastic composites is a cost-effective method, it can’t produce complex geometries on its own, meaning that it requires assembling operations and parts to do so. You can combine stamp forming with over-injection molding, but then the final part’s mechanical properties will be limited. FFF 3D printing can achieve complex geometries and support advanced materials, but it isn’t perfect. So combining over-3D printing on the organo-sheet can offer the best of both worlds.

The team’s manufacturing process is three-fold:

  1. The flat organo-sheet is placed on the 3D printer bed and the complex features are over-printed
  2. The over-printed organo-sheet is picked up and fed to the infrared heating station
  3. The final shape is achieved by stamp forming once the optimum processing temperature is reached

“Establishing strong bonded interfaces between organo-sheet substrate and over-3D printed polymers is essential to the success of the proposed approach, and it is the motivation of this research, where the main objective is to establish the effects of the organo-sheet temperature on the shear strength of the bonding interface,” the researchers explained.

Figure 2. Geometry of the over-3D printed single lap test specimen (all dimensions in mm)

A standard polyamide 6 (PA6) was used for the infill material, while the printed composite material was a continuous carbon fiber reinforced polyamide 6 (CF-PA6); both came from Markforged. The company’s desktop Mark Two 3D printer was used to fabricate the over-3D printed specimen, the geometry of which consisted of a 2 x 30 x 90 mm3 organo-sheet substrate and a 4 x 15 x 45 mm3 prismatic over-3D printed part.

“To prevent delamination stress in the overprinted zone and assure a pure shear loading at the bonding interface, 2 mm of height tap has designed and glued to the specimen end. Therefore, it has been assumed that the first failure mode of the single lap specimen will occurred due to shearing at the bonding interface and that the tensile failure load of substrate is 10 time higher,” the researchers explained.

“An over-3D printed part has been manufactured layer by layer according to the printer parameter shown in the Table 3. The printed part is assembled by a stacking a sequence of 32 layers: the first 16 PA6 layers are placed to fill the gap of organo-sheet thickness (2 mm), the next two PA6 layers define an interface of 0.25 mm (flexible bed) and the last 14 CF-PA6 layers are devoted to withstand the test load. Therefore, printed carbon fibres are aligned with the loading direction (0º) and extrusion path of PA6 layers are driven in 0/90º direction.”

The team carried out quasi-static shear tests, studied failure modes by using an optical microscopy to analyze the over-printed fracture zones, and conducted differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) on the samples, which weighed between 5.5 and 6 mg.

After all of the experiments had been completed, the researchers felt that their work fully demonstrated a feasible new process that combined stamp forming of carbon fiber reinforced PA12 organo-sheet and over-3D printing of continuous carbon fiber reinforced PA6.

Figure 4. Interface pictures of three different over-3D printed samples; a) original over-3D printed interface, b) fracture surface of the sample with Ti 157.5 ºC and c) fracture surface of the sample with Ti 177.5 ºC.

“The substrate temperature, the only parameter that can be modified in the printer, is critical to get a strong bonding. Increasing the temperature increases the shear strength, and once the interface temperature exceeds the melting peak temperature of the substrate, the shear strength does not increase anymore. Therefore, it can be concluded that an optimum temperature can be found for balancing mechanical performances and cost-effectiveness of the process,” the researchers wrote. “Anyway, another processing parameter (printing temperature or pressure) or surface treatments (texturing or adding hot-melt) must be explored to improve even more the adhesion between the substrate and the over-3D printed features.”

Discuss this research and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

The post Combining Over-3D Printing of Continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites with Stamp Forming Organo-sheet Substrates appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Russian Lab Optimizes FDM 3D Printing Processes Leading to Increased Part Strength of 108%

In this study, Russian researchers sought to optimize FFF 3D printing parameters further, improving on strength and optimization processes. Their findings were released in the recently published ‘Desktop Fabrication of Strong Poly (Lactic Acid) Parts: FFF Process Parameters Tuning,’ as the team created five different samples from CAD models of parts, 3D printed on an Ultimaker 2. Their initial goal was to increase mechanical properties, allow for predictable quality, and stronger parts overall.

Testing part geometry optimization and results of study

Shape 1 was used to represent FFF 3D printed parts as the geometry suddenly forms a weak spot—with the rest of the samples working as designs to fix the issue in Shape 1:

  • Shape 2 was created to increase the strength of weak areas with a new material.
  • Shapes 2&3 were meant to increase part strength with FFF 3D printing in mind.
  • Shape 4 is the result of numerous design iterations.
  • Shape 5 mixes traditional approaches and FFF 3D printing optimization practices.

“Current work shows the effect of tuning the FFF process parameters on the strength of the samples of the same five shapes. Along with ‘coarse’ tuning — altering printing parameters for the whole printing cycle, the “fine” tuning is also studied,” stated the researchers. “In the latter case three parameters are varied during the printing cycle depending on the specific part of the sample being printed. It is shown that for a complex part, only for an optimized geometry (and only for it) significant increment of mechanical performance is achievable by optimization of FFF process parameters.”

For Shape 1, the results were vastly different. Interlayer bonding strength was ‘completely inefficient. Shapes 2-5, there was a significant increase in the part strength.

“It is clearly visible that the air corridors at the boundaries between plastic threads are fragmented and coalesce on the fracture of the Shape 5 sample, printed in mode D,” stated the researchers.

Shape 1 dimensions (a) and constitution (b) with shell interruption highlighted

The following parameters remained the same in each case:

  • Nozzle diameter (0.6 mm)
  • Heated bed temperature (60 °С
  • The first layer thickness (0.3 mm)
  • The first layer printing speed (25 mm/s).

“The effectiveness of coarse (modes B, C, D) and fine (mode E) FFF tuning for all tested shapes can be evaluated from the Figure 15. Parts of Shape 1, contained critical shell interruption, cannot be strengthened by technological mode optimization as it is shown on the chart (red bars). For all other tested shapes modifying technological modes led to a significant positive effect. Significant increase in strength without loss of product surface and dimensional quality can be achieved by reducing the layer thickness (Shapes 2, 3, 4 and 5, mode C) or by fine tuning the 3D printing parameters (Shape 5, mode E),” concluded the authors.

As 3D printing continues to progress, with multiple offshoots branching off into their own impressive realms from bioprinting to 4D printing, researchers continue to tighten up processes in FFF 3D printing from working with defects to improving speed exponentially. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Destruction of Shape 3 samples printed in mode A [61] (a) and mode B (b). For the mode B sample,
after the test is over, it is still not possible to separate the shaft from the boss with bare hands

[Source / Images: ‘Desktop Fabrication of Strong Poly (Lactic Acid) Parts: FFF Process Parameters Tuning’]

 

The post Russian Lab Optimizes FDM 3D Printing Processes Leading to Increased Part Strength of 108% appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

French Researchers Develop Algorithm to Generate Interior Ribbed Support Vaults for 3D Printed Hollow Objects

Hollowed Bunny printed with our method, using only 2.2% of material inside (compared to a filled model). The supports use 316 mm of filament over a total of 1,622 mm for the print).

In 3D printing, every layer of material must be supported by the layer below it in order to form a solid object; when it comes to FFF 3D printing, material can only be deposited at points that are already receiving support from below. French researchers Thibault Tricard, Frédéric Claux, and Sylvain Lefebvre, from the Université de Limoges (UNILIM) and the Université de Lorraine, wanted to look at 3D printing hollow objects, and proposed a new method for hollowing in their paper “Ribbed support vaults for 3D printing of hollowed objects.”

The abstract reads, “To reduce print time and material usage, especially in the context of prototyping, it is often desirable to fabricate hollow objects. This exacerbates the requirement of support between consecutive layers: standard hollowing produces surfaces in overhang that cannot be directly fabricated anymore. Therefore, these surfaces require internal support structures. These are similar to external supports for overhangs, with the key difference that internal supports remain invisible within the object after fabrication. A fundamental challenge is to generate structures that provide a dense support while using little material. In this paper, we propose a novel type of support inspired by rib structures. Our approach guarantees that any point in a layer is supported by a point below, within a given threshold distance. Despite providing strong guarantees for printability, our supports remain lightweight and reliable to print. We propose a greedy support generation algorithm that creates compact hierarchies of rib-like walls. The walls are progressively eroded away and straightened, eventually merging with the interior object walls.”

Figure 2: A Stanford bunny model is hollowed using a standard offsetting approach. The resulting cavity (R) will not print properly due to local minima (red) and overhanging areas (orange).

While most people think of 3D printing supports as external ones that support overhanging parts of an object, the interior of an object may also need support structures.

“Hollowing a part is not trivial with technologies such as FFF,” the researchers explained. “In particular, the inner cavity resulting from a standard hollowing operator will not be printable: it will contain regions in overhang (with a low slope, see Figure 2) as well as local minima: pointed features facing downwards. There is therefore a need for support structures that can operate inside a part.”

Inner supports should occupy a small amount of space with the print cavity, and the impact on overall print time should be slight. Other researchers have contributed a variety of ideas in terms of support structures with 3D printed hollowed objects, including:

  • sparse infills
  • self-supported cavities
  • external supports as internal structures

“We propose an algorithm to generate internal support structures that guarantee that deposited material is supported everywhere from below, are reliable to print, and require little extra material,” the researchers wrote. “This is achieved by generating hierarchical rib-like wall structures, that quickly erode away into the internal walls of the object.

“Our algorithm produces structures offering a very high support density, while using little extra material. In addition, our supports print reliably as they are composed of continuous, wall-like structures that suffer less from stability issues.”

Hollow kitten model printed with our method and split
in half vertically.

The researchers explained how to support a 3D object by “sweeping through its slices from top to bottom” and searching for any unsupported parts, then adding necessary material below them in the next slice; this material doesn’t need to cover the entire unsupported area, and can take any shape.

“The amount of material added can also be larger than the area needing support. Depositing more material than necessary comes at the price of longer printing times, but can be interesting to significantly improve printability,” the researchers explained. “Large, simple support structures often are faster to print than complex, smaller structures. Indeed, when multiple disconnected locations need to be supported, it is in many cases more effective to print a single, large structure. It encompasses and conservatively supports many small locations. This is more effective than supporting isolated spots, which individual support size may be very small and therefore difficult to print, and which will inevitably increase the amount of travel and therefore print time (taking nozzle acceleration and deceleration into account).”

The team then explained their algorithm for ribbed support vault structures. The idea is to use three main operations to produce supports: propagating and reducing supports from the above slice, detecting areas that appear to be unsupported in the current slice, and adding the supports needed for it.

“Our inspiration comes from architecture, where supports are generally designed in an arch (and vault) like manner. In particular, vaults tend to join walls in any interior space, with only a few straight pillars directed towards the floor. Similarly, many vault structures present hierarchical aspects. Such hierarchies afford for dense supports while quickly reducing to only a few elements – much like trees,” they wrote.

“Within each slice we favor supports having a rectilinear aspect: they provide support all around them while eroding quickly from their ends. Thus, within a given slice, we seek to produce rectilinear features covering the areas to be supported.

“We propose to rely on 2D trees joining the object inner boundaries. Through the propagation-reduction operator, the trees are quickly eroded away (from their branches). Taken together across slices, the trees produce self-supported walls that soon join and merge with the object inner contours, much like the ribs of ribbed vaults.”

The team 3D printed a variety of PLA models with the same perimeters on different systems. Orange models were fabricated on an Ultimaker 3, while the yellow Moai was printed on an Ultimaker 2 and the octopus on a CR-10. A Prima P120 was used to make white models, the blue Buddha was printed on an eMotion Tech MicroDelta Rework, and a dual-color fawn was made on a Flashforge Creator Pro.

Demon dog printed using our method for external support.

The quality of these prints matches models with a dense infill, thanks to the full support property offered, and the algorithm generates multiple small segments that require individual printing, which led to many “retract/prime operations surrounding travels.”

“Depending on the printer model used, the quality of the extrusion mechanics, the user-adjustable pressure of the dented extrusion wheel on the filament, as well as the brand of the filament itself, a small amount of under-extrusion may happen,” the team explained.

“To compensate for this, we perform a 5% prime surplus at the beginning of each support segment: if the filament was retracted by 3 mm before travel, we push it back by 3.15 mm after travel. Because the extra prime may create a bulge, we avoid doing it when located too close to perimeters, so as to not impact surface quality.”

The team also evaluated how much material their method needed, and compared this with materials used for iterative carving and support-free hollowing methods. They also noted how layer thickness impacted support size, and recorded processing times.

Comparison with Support-Free Hollowing and Iterative Carving. The input volume represents the volume (in mm3) and height (in mm) of the model.

“While producing supports of small length, our algorithm is clearly not optimal. This is revealed for instance on low-angle overhangs,” the team wrote. “The inefficiency is due to the local choice of connecting support walls to the closest internal surface, ignoring the material quantity that will have to appear in slices below. While a more global scheme could be devised, it could quickly become prohibitively expensive to compute.”

The researchers concluded that their algorithm ensures complete support of deposited material, which can be helpful for extruding viscous or heavy materials like concrete and clay. They believe that their method for 3D printing hollowed objects through generating ribbed internal support structures could one day lead to novel external support structures as well.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

3DQue Introducing QPoD & QSuite at RAPID 2019: Enabling Autonomous 3D Printing Mass Production Capabilities

Today in Detroit, this year’s RAPID + TCT kicked off in the Cobo Center. We’ve already been reporting on plenty of news from the show, with lots more to come in the days ahead. Canadian company 3DQue Systems Inc., which automates FFF and FDM 3D printing for mass production, will be launching two technologies at the event this week: QSuite and QPoD.

First, a little background…the company was founded just last year by finance expert Steph Sharp and 18-year-old inventor and 3D printing whiz 18-year-old Mateo Pekic, who began 3D printing small part quantities in 2016. Pekic needed to find a way to remove parts from the print bed and start the next job remotely, and after lots of research and testing, has now been running his own 3D printers – with full automation – for more than two years.

“Until now, plastic 3D printing has failed to meet today’s manufacturing needs due to the high cost of part removal and lack of end-to-end automation. Working from his basement, Mateo Pekic has been able to solve a problem that has stumped some of the world’s leading experts in materials science, engineering and innovation by automating plastic 3D printers to safely produce complex plastic parts at scale,” said Sharp, who is also the CEO of 3DQue.

Pekic spoke with Sharp, a local mentor for entrepreneurs, and asked her to run the business with him; 3DQue was founded just days after Pekic’s 18th birthday. The company has truly made plastic 3D printing competitive with traditional manufacturing, as it offers solutions to some of the major problems when it comes to scaling the technology, such as unit cost, autonomous part removal, and automated production.

When I first saw an image of the QPoD, I was positive it was oriented wrong, until I read the release more closely. The plastic high-volume 3D printing mass production unit, powered by the company’s automation QSuite, has a vertical build platform.

This could actually be a real game changer. The efficient, compact, 24/7 production-on-demand unit has a total of nine 3D printers in a 12 sq ft 3×3 array. An 8-day field trial was conducted on the autonomous platform in January, and the QPoD printers were able to successfully produce 25 x 25 x 25 mm switch cube frames at a rate that would be equivalent to 100,000 parts a year: a production capacity of over 8,000 parts/sq ft.

Switch cubes

The platform has internal conveyors and collection bins for true autonomous 3D printing, at unit costs that are competitive with injection molding. With QPoD, there’s no need for outsourcing, which helps reduce inventory levels, costs, the environmental footprint, and lead times.

The QPoD is driven by QSuite, which automates 3D printers all the way from upload of the design to delivery of the parts. This end-to-end automation upgrade negates manual, time-consuming tasks like enterprise scheduling, 3D printer restart, and parts removal. The suite includes several modules, including calibration, material removal, and matching the next print job to the current 3D printer configuration.

QSuite mass produces high-quality plastic parts in a continuous loop without the need for dedicated operators, and reprioritizes jobs based on changing parts or deadlines. The suite doesn’t require any glue, tape, or robotics for autonomous part removal, and uses real-time reporting and management data to give users complete control from remote locations.

At RAPID this week, 3DQue will be offering live, hands-on demonstrations of the innovative QPoD. Not only has the cover been removed from the platform so attendees can get a good look inside, but you can also book a hands-on demonstration of the automated part ordering system at the company’s booth #1765. You can choose the part, material, color, and quantity, then watch how it’s uploaded into the queue and matched with the correct printer. Once the part is printed, attendees will be able to see it automatically delivered to the collection area and pick it up.

Additionally, don’t miss the Innovation Auditions at RAPID today from 1:30-2:30, as Pekic will be competing for the chance to present 3DQue at tomorrow morning’s keynote presentation.

Starting in July, QSuite capabilities will be available for license to end users on a pay-for-use basis starting at $1 an hour per printer (lower hourly rate for high volume users). Booking is also currently open for the QPoD platform, with installations slated to take place between June-December 2019 for the introductory price of $45,000. Each on-demand production unit comes with QSuite, automated part delivery, control panel, and nine 3D printers.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Images provided by 3DQue]